Proview Sues Apple in U.S. Over Alleged Deception in iPad Trademark Purchase

[Mac Kiwi]

I don't see how Proview think this will come out any different then the ruling in Hong Kong. Why would they be wasting even more money they do not have? I suppose it could be pure greed i.e. Perfectly sane people sending their money to Nigeria.


Would the HK ruling have any bearing whatsoever in US courts?

 

[jlc1978]

It's an Apple. It doesn't even look the same.

So the Big Apple can't use Apples in their logos because some electronic vendor uses them ? It's not like they directly copied the Apple logo here...

Ultimately, it comes down to the chance of confusion and dilution. Companies have to protect their logo or they risk losing it. Would NYC lose? That's a question for the courts.

As for Proview - the question would become when did they last use the trademark and have they actively defended it? Depending on the answer Apple could simply argue they abandoned it and thus had no rights to it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ultimately, it comes down to the chance of confusion and dilution. Companies have to protect their logo or they risk losing it. Would NYC lose? That's a question for the courts.

Same for iTV then. Which just goes to prove my point. Don't go all double standards on me now.

Glad we finally agree.

As for Proview - the question would become when did they last use the trademark and have they actively defended it? Depending on the answer Apple could simply argue they abandoned it and thus had no rights to it.

The sub thread was not about Proview, but about iTV being a broadcasting company and Apple being an electronic vendor, meaning they could "share" the trademark. My NYC example was just that, a city with a recyclable bag program vs an electronic vendor still ending up in court.

And no, Proview have not abandonned it, hence why Apple sought to acquire it and it in many other jurisdiction.

 

[gnasher729]

In the US he will get slapped down. Proview is prevented from presenting two conflicfing sets of evidence and Apple has many remedies including promissory estoppel as well as detrimental reliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Equitable_estoppel_.28American_law.29

But that comes down to the same thing that is going on in the Chinese courts: Whether there is _one_ Proview or whether there are _two_ Proviews. _If_ there are two Proviews then they can make conflicting claims.

Proview 1 says: Apple cheated and paid us too little. And these Proview 2 guys don't know what they are talking about; they agreed to the sale.

Proview 2 says: We didn't sell the trademarks. Proview 1 had no right to sell them. If Proview 1 claims that Apple paid too little, that is nonsense; Apple didn't buy anything and didn't have to pay anything.

Any court has to look at the claims and take them at face value. Proview 2 isn't involved in this court. And Apple cannot claim that Proview 1 had nothing to sell, because that would be disastrous to their claim in China.

But in the end, I don't think there is any law that required Apple to state that they were behind this sale and that they wanted to sell millions of iPads, so when Proview has to tell the court which laws Apple has actually broken, they will be stuck.

Let's say my neighbor and I have an argument who owns a bit of land between our houses. And you steal apples from a tree on the disputed land. I sue you for stealing apples from my tree, and so does my neighbor. We cannot both be right at the same time, but each of us can be right.

Only in Proviews hometown have the Chinese local courts favored them, as I'm sure you also know. What is really confusing is how they waited SO long - to a time of them going bankrupt, to finally sue for something that should've been apparent from the get-go. I wouldn't be surprised if their next claim stated that they are going bankrupt because of what Apple has done to them.

Whether hometown or not, that court didn't see crucial evidence that wasn't available to Apple at the time - emails where Proview 2 agreed to the sale.

 

[snowmoon]

But that comes down to the same thing that is going on in the Chinese courts: Whether there is _one_ Proview or whether there are _two_ Proviews. _If_ there are two Proviews then they can make conflicting claims.

One chairman can not make two conflicting legal claims in US courts, he had better decide what lie he will tell and stick to it. Had this been two different companies with two different CEO's then maybe it would fly, maybe, but they are not and, this is critical as well, even if they had been a reliance argument can be made for the fact that Apple owns the trademark and any legal burden on payment for said trademark falls on Proview ( the one that made the sale ).

The basic fact is the sale was 100% legal and properly executed, but the seller has remorse that they didn't ask for more and has been looking for a handout from a deep pocket. Apple know better than to fall into this trap since one handout begets another, especially when dealing with China.

 

[snowmoon]

Now, there's a company Apple should just purchase. Maybe improve their software.

I think the fact that they have not tells volumes about Apple's vision for TV moving forward.

 

[tbrinkma]

WHy can't people just get it through their heads that unskilled manufacturing labor is not coming back? Corporations are not going to sacrifice their bottom line and consumers are not going to pay more. We're a developed country - we invent and own the IP, other people make (or copy on occasion). I frankly am fine with this arrangement. Would you rather line up in droves to buy an iPhone or to apply for a job at Foxconn making iPhones?

I agree that this sort of job isn't coming back to the US any time soon. (It'll happen eventually, because we'll eventually be just as cost competitive as what is *currently* low-cost labor elsewhere, but that's an entirely different discussion.)

On the other hand, I think it would be nice if it *did* come back, and I think it would be *good* for the country if it came back. There's quite a few people out there who have more capability than it takes to flip burgers, but not enough to design high-end consumer electronics. Skilled factory work fills a gap in the job market that isn't covered (adequately) by anything else out there. It wouldn't be a real problem to bring those jobs back into the country, except that we've let our infrastructure for those jobs languish to the point of decay. Unfortunately, that state makes it *much* more expensive (and correspondingly less attractive) to do so.

 

[jlc1978]

Same for iTV then. Which just goes to prove my point. Don't go all double standards on me now.

Glad we finally agree.

Never said iTV couldn't prevent Apple from using the iTV logo.

The sub thread was not about Proview, but about iTV being a broadcasting company and Apple being an electronic vendor, meaning they could "share" the trademark. My NYC example was just that, a city with a recyclable bag program vs an electronic vendor still ending up in court.

using the same trademarked name is different form using the same logo - I can have a ford Motor Company and a Ford's Theater - even though both can be trademarked names. Logos, which we are talking about, is different.

And no, Proview have not abandonned it, hence why Apple sought to acquire it and it in many other jurisdiction.

Again, that depends on what preview did with it. If that haven't used it for enough time it could be considered to be abandoned - you need to use trademarks to keep them.

 

[trainwrecka]

What and where are the incentives for anybody to do mass production in the US?
300,000 iphones a day in the US , good luck and many happy returns!

Ha! No kidding!

 

[DesignerOnMac]

One chairman can not make two conflicting legal claims in US courts, he had better decide what lie he will tell and stick to it. Had this been two different companies with two different CEO's then maybe it would fly, maybe, but they are not and, this is critical as well, even if they had been a reliance argument can be made for the fact that Apple owns the trademark and any legal burden on payment for said trademark falls on Proview ( the one that made the sale ).

The basic fact is the sale was 100% legal and properly executed, but the seller has remorse that they didn't ask for more and has been looking for a handout from a deep pocket. Apple know better than to fall into this trap since one handout begets another, especially when dealing with China.

UPDATE: Proview has sent letters to any businesses selling iPads. The letter threatens that iPads can not be transported, stocked, or sold! (In China.)